30-Year-Old Man Sentenced to Prison for Sexual Assault of Cousin 13 Years Ago

Conviction Based Solely on Victim's Testimony... 1-Year Prison Sentence and Court Detention
Defendant Claims "Another Cousin Committed the Crime... I Am Unfairly Accused" and Immediately Appeals
Court States "No Contradictions in Testimony and Consistent Even in Specific Details"

[Asia Economy Reporter Yoo Byung-don] A man in his 30s who was accused of molesting his cousin 13 years ago was sentenced to prison and taken into custody in court. The court recognized his guilt solely based on the credibility of the victim's testimony.

The Criminal Division 11 of the Seoul Southern District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Hwan-seung) announced on the 18th that it sentenced A (37) to one year in prison for violating the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, ordered him to complete 40 hours of sexual violence treatment program, and imposed a three-year employment restriction at child and youth-related institutions and welfare facilities for the disabled.

A was tried on charges of molesting his cousin B (then 10 years old) who was asleep at a relative’s house in 2007. It was investigated that B’s younger brother and another cousin C were also in the room at the time of the incident.

B later called A in 2010, three years after the incident, to confront him about the molestation. A denied the crime at that time, and B filed a complaint against A in 2018, 11 years after the incident.

A’s side claimed, "On the day we first received the call from B confronting the molestation, during a call with C, C said that he was the one who molested B, and when the investigation started, it was C’s parents, not the accused, who first asked B’s side to withdraw the complaint," pointing to C as the culprit.

They added, "The victim’s statements were inconsistent, saying during the investigation that she pretended to be asleep at the time of the incident but later in court said she saw the defendant’s face. Given that 13 years have passed, there is a high possibility of memory confusion," and argued, "The victim mistook C’s crime as committed by the defendant."

In fact, C admitted during the investigation and trial that he told A he molested B, but testified, "I lied to A to prevent the incident from escalating among relatives."

The victim B also claimed, "Although the room was dark, the door was open and there was a window, so I could even see the clock hands," and "I clearly saw the defendant’s hands and face." She also refuted A’s claim by saying, "Out of fear, I pretended to be asleep but then got up pretending to get water, and at that time C guided me to the sink where I drank water."

The court found the victim’s testimony highly credible and recognized A’s guilt.

The court stated, "According to Supreme Court precedents, even if there are some inconsistencies in the testimony, if there is no contradiction in the testimony itself, credibility cannot be denied," and added, "There are no contradictions in the victim’s testimony, and the testimony is consistent even in specific and detailed parts, showing high credibility."

It further ruled, "The victim was old enough at the time of the incident to sufficiently distinguish between the defendant and B, and although the room was dark, it was not to the extent that identifying the defendant was difficult."

Regarding the meaning of C’s testimony, which was one of the issues in the case, the court judged, "C’s admission of attempting to molest the victim does not contradict the victim’s testimony that specifically identifies the defendant as the perpetrator."

A’s side appealed, saying, "Considering that C practically confessed, this judgment is incomprehensible from a common-sense perspective."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.